Warhammer 40k fanon talk:Rules
Just a thought, shouldn't this be under the wiki namespace rather than just "Warhammer fanon"? --Solbur 22:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC) By namespace, do you mean Warhammer 40k fanon:Rules ? I mean the actual name of the wiki. In this case it would be "Warhammer 40,000 Wiki:Rules". You should probably see if you can change that BTW, it could get a bit confusing if you don't point out that it's a fanon wiki in the name. --Solbur 00:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC) The name of the fanon is completely: Warhammer 40k fanon. So I will just move it to Warhammer 40k fanon:Rules. No, I mean the actual wikia Namespace, not what you say is the complete name of the wiki. You guys have got the actual name set as "Warhammer 40,000 Wiki". Let me find an example. You know how the Halo Fanon Rules page has the words "Project Page" in the corner of the page rather than just "article"? That's what I'm talking about. Otherwise, it comes up as an actual article on the wiki (in the article count) rather than a proper project page. I know it's probably confusing but that's how most wikis do things. --Solbur 00:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC) How do you set it to a project page? I dont know what to do. Sorry, I mustn't have been clear enough. You need to move it to the actual wikia namespace. The current namespace is Warhammer 40,000 Wiki (you see the link to the main page on the side bar that says that? that's what I mean). --Solbur 02:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC) Is there any way to change the namespace? I tried editing the monaco sidebar, but that didnt work. I dunno. Maybe you, Dark Seer or Vegas should consider talking to Wikia staff about it? --Solbur 12:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC) On the Modification of Technology I'm seeing a lot of people writing in customised gear and heavily changed stuff in their characters, without going into how it happened. That needs a little more detail than people think, seeing as how the Imperium treats technology as a religion, rather than a science, what with the Machine Spirits and praying to stuff to hope it works after they drenched it with anointed oils and pumped it full of incense and Holy Water. Mars and it's empire jealously guard knowledge and engineering, and it's been explicitly stated that they are more than willing to resort to murder, hostage-taking and terrorism to keep a firm hold on that monopoly. In spite of how awesome it seems to have an Imperial character or entire organisation running around with heavily modified stuff like gatling plasma guns, it's altogether more likely that the Mechanicum would get wind of it and either confiscate the stuff or have the user assassinated, then take the stuff. Other races have more leeway, but are still subject to restrictions like the Eldar Paths and the Tau Caste System. Orks are hobbled by their own need to have their guns loud and that makes them inherently inefficient. I applaud people's desire to push the letter, but they're just putting something there and leaving it at that (which, to me, stinks of "It's that way because that's how I want it"). I can understand customisations like reflex sights, scopes and chainblades and all, but then there's the likes of ramped-up terminator armour and hell, even I'm guilty of it, with the Steel Tigers Flagship, but I want to collar this before the site becomes a rapaging mess of randomly inserted Gatling Plasma Guns and Big-Bore Melta Cannons bolted to Terminator Armour with an upped Power System and a Jetpack. Thoughts? //--''Run4My Talk'' 15:51, October 29, 2009 (UTC) Plagiarism I suggest a rule being put in place that ANY plagiarism (this includes using other peoples works and modifying the words) be deleted immediately. We shouldnt be allowing this on any level and some members have been given far too much freedom with being allowed to do it. Final call is to you Seer and BB but im thinking it would be a good idea, immediate deletion --[http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:NoFuryLikeMine'War within, War without, War unending'] 12:02, December 2, 2009 (UTC) I second this motion. KuHB1aM 13:00, December 2, 2009 (UTC) :Everyone in the community has an input. We may not be a democracy, but we take what you guys say as a basis for our stuff. We try to be just, but that is not always an easy thing to do. Right now, we need to find a way to do this without angering a majority of the community. You guys tell me and Seer what you want, we will work on a way to integrate that into a rule. Cheers, Depends on how bad it is, a sentence, maybe a whole article delete delete! [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:Dark_Seer'It is not enough'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Dark_Seer'that I succeed'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/dark_seer'''- all others must fail'] 00:09, December 3, 2009 (UTC) It would have to be a whole article issue, not just a sentence here or there unless the original author objects --[http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:NoFuryLikeMine'War within, War without, War unending'] 06:47, December 3, 2009 (UTC) He was joking :P also, is anyone thinking of a way to make this better? I have things to do as well, peoples. Blade bane is not a robot. Haha... does not compute... make what better? the site? the rules? some of the butt ugly people we know? :P --[http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:NoFuryLikeMine'War within, War without, War unending'] 06:54, December 3, 2009 (UTC) Who knows what he says [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:Dark_Seer'It is not enough'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Dark_Seer'that I succeed'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/dark_seer'- all others must fail'] 07:21, December 3, 2009 (UTC) You people suck. I was being on topic, referring to the plagiarism :| We knew that bb (HE'S MENTAL RUN AWAY) [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:Dark_Seer'It is not enough'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Dark_Seer'that I succeed'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/dark_seer'- all others must fail'] 07:43, December 3, 2009 (UTC) Haha, flee..... but in all seriousness from my point of view that bout covers it, automatic deletion if proof is found of an article being plagiarised at the discretion of Admins and only after sufficient evidence is found --[http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:NoFuryLikeMine'War within, War without, War unending'] 09:26, December 3, 2009 (UTC) Good wording as i've ever seen, if that makes sense, i'll add in the rule as soon as my dimwitted partner's seen it, objected to it and me ignoring him [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:Dark_Seer'It is not enough'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Dark_Seer'that I succeed'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/dark_seer'- all others must fail'] 09:39, December 3, 2009 (UTC) :K then trollbait, if you wish. So Andrew, has it by chance crossed your mind that perhaps my constant objections to your unarguably hasty actions are -by chance- me using common sense rather then brute force? It takes a slight error to make a misunderstanding, a slip of the tongue (or finger, as it were) to make an error, and a self assured phailure to try and call me out on something by dangling bait metaphorically in front of my head. ('BTW, I bet you had no idea I was joking the whole time there :P') Since I do in fact oppose, I guess I will have to explain my reasoning. While certain cases are exempt from this due to minor misunderstandings (Keeping in mind our 2 references rule), we can not make a hasty decision that will undo something that was possibly worked very hard upon. It takes two clicks of a button to delete, but a thousand taps on the keyboard to write a paragraph on average. As such, due to the fact we do have to oblige to some of the central wikia's guidelines, we must "''assume good faith". So here is what I was thinking: First time you do something blatantly plagiarizing, you get a warning. Second time, you get a notification telling you that you have no more warnings, and the next act of plagiarism will get you a ban. Since plagiarism is more of an annoyance to correct rather than a massively big deal, I would say each act of plagiarism falls under the minor offense section on our banning guidelines. In essence, you get a few chances to realize what you are doing is wrong, then we forcibly remove you for it, then you get the major bans. Do tell me if this sounds unreasonable, keeping in mind that plagiarism is not that hard to get rid of when you only have to click two buttons to delete an article. Cheers, That is a fair point as long as all admins go by the same rules, makes sense. still might be worth adding something about it on the rules page --[http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:NoFuryLikeMine'War within, War without, War unending'] 11:04, December 3, 2009 (UTC) Fine BB, as i can't be bothered to argue, nor can i because i'm so crap at it, perhaps one warning, it is after all a major thing. [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:Dark_Seer'It is not enough'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Dark_Seer'that I succeed'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/dark_seer'''- all others must fail'] 22:38, December 3, 2009 (UTC) I think it's time i put the plagiarism rule up, one warning, two week fix up time, delete. [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:Dark_Seer'It is not enough'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Dark_Seer'that I succeed'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dark_Seer'- all others must fail'] 00:59, January 8, 2010 (UTC) Mate, because squats are 'Not cannon' and this is a non-cannon wiki by our rules they could by all rights make a squat article. I'm attempting that. Spamming a site and saying it's helping people is a loophole too, because they're not advertising it and it doesn't really count as spam if they claim it's to help people[http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:Dark_Seer'It is not enough'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Dark_Seer'that I succeed'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dark_Seer'- all others must fail'] *In the end, it still comes under spamming. Canon and fanon are two completely different things. This is not a non-canon wiki, it is just a fanon. We delete non-canon articles here. ::Yes but if they say it's not canon and they make an article for it and they complain we have no rule or right to stop them. and someone put the plagiarism rule up. I think historical references are okay but not something like avatar or something, just resurrecting a dead subject here. [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:Dark_Seer'It is not enough'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Dark_Seer'that I succeed'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dark_Seer'- all others must fail'] 07:51, January 8, 2010 (UTC) :::GW's current stance on Squats, and hence the canon, is that they never existed. //--'Run4'My Talk'' 09:37, January 8, 2010 (UTC) ::::Exactly. which means, currently, someone could by all rights make an article on this wiki called squats. i want a rule against making a squat article and anything else that GW deletes. the link part was, admittedly, pathetic.[http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:Dark_Seer'It is not enough'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Dark_Seer'that I succeed'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dark_Seer'''- all others must fail'] 10:37, January 8, 2010 (UTC) :::::I don't care about the squats, I shit you not. What you are saying is completely out of the context of your points, and you are misinterpreting me. If you want to get the squats out of the way in any case, do it in an indirect way so that it doesn't target a single thing. It will look better and more organized that way. ::::You make a valid point, i'll figure something out. [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User:Dark_Seer'It is not enough'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Dark_Seer'that I succeed'] [http://warhammer40kfanon.wikia.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dark_Seer'- all others must fail'] 10:59, January 8, 2010 (UTC) When you mean lost primarch, do you mean the two unknown primarchs or the traitor primarchs? Primarch11 Second Founding Being a member for over a year I am well informed of the rule that there is to be no second founding chapters. The reason that was stated to various people that I've seen it stated was because all of the Second Founding Legions were known. This is not a true statement and the reasoning for the rule needs to be reformed, given exceptions, or changed. :I think it should be legal to have a Second Founding Dark Angels Chapter. "..Dark Angels Legion to have sired at '''least' three more chapters. These are the Angels of Absolution, the Angels of Vengeance, and the Angels of Redemption, but more of these so-called 'Successors' are said to exist. Certainly, more were created than are recorded, and all of these Chapters are extant to this day." Page 73, Codex: Dark Angels. I understand it that the no missing legions and no primarchs is specific due to there only being two of them and we don't want a hundred primarchs and legions running around when canon states that there are only two. However, Codex: Dark Angels makes no such distinction in the number of Second Founding Chapters. Canon does give the limitation that no Dark Angels successors can be destroyed or wiped out. :However, would the rules be violating the rules if the current rule stands? The rule that states no Second Founding Chapters which violates the follow canon in which Games Workshop seems to have left the door to an unnumbered volume of Second Founding Dark Angels Chapter open. Patriot398 22:18, December 15, 2010 (UTC) I think that is a fair proposition. If it was limited so that a mod had to asked first I think a system for making Dark Angel Second Founding Chapters could end up being an intresting addition to the site. --A Shadow Before the Dawn 23:18, December 15, 2010 (UTC) New sources The 6th addition needs to be added to canon soruces.Cheers [[User:Dog of War|''Dog of War ]][[User talk:Dog of War|'AKA the God of Raw']] 10:58, July 8, 2012 (UTC) NOTHING THAT CAME AFTER MATT WARD IS CANON. (I'm joking, it's being added). --Lither My talk My wiki 11:23, July 8, 2012 (UTC) I hate it as much as you, mate. Cheers ''Dog of War ''[[User talk:Dog of War|'AKA the God of Raw''']] 11:48, July 8, 2012 (UTC) I think i found a gameing comparison which is a apt comparison for a good number of us https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLVfwyhpDC4 to put it simply I know i hate lore unfriendly mary sue BS and i know of many here who do. Allow me a demonstration. This is your body...WITHOUT FIBER! (talk) 04:32, May 16, 2014 (UTC) just looked at the What is cannon segment, and i didn't see the Fantasy Flight RP games in there....does that mean those are not considered cannon or are they simply not listed for simplicity sake. I bring this up more for the case that the Rak'ghul and the Lacrymole would be solidly canon if they are, but would become doubtful if those publications are not. Allow me a demonstration. This is your body...WITHOUT FIBER! (talk) 22:41, June 13, 2014 (UTC) The rules say "3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th Edition Codex and Rulebooks" are canon, but also that "any events that happen in Warhammer 40,000 universe after year 999.M41 are seen as an attempt to create Extended Timeline" The 8th edition rulebook takes the timeline past 999.M41, so does this mean that we are expected to keep 8th Edition's canon in mind, but not actually acknowledge any of the new lore? ~~BraynCel~~ Bit late for the previous, but apparently I had forgotten there was a mention about extended timelines on this page too. Our canon policy is located in here anyway, and after a short dispute this Autumn we agreed that there shall be no articles after the Plague Wars. Also, please sign your messages with four tildes and Jesus you've messed good with the visual editor... --Remos talk 21:44, November 13, 2017 (UTC)